Education Policy: Lesson Learned?

Education Policy: Lesson Learned?

Who should be in charge of your child's education -- you or some
strangers in Washington, D.C.? It's a question worth pondering as
Congress prepares to reauthorize the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
law.

As readers of my book, Home Invasion, are aware, I'm a big
advocate of what I call "parent-directed education." We've done it
all with our three teenagers: private school, public school,
homeschool and even a combination of all three. Whatever form it
takes, though, parental wisdom should take precedence. And
decisions about how a school is run should be as "local" as
possible.

NCLB fundamentally undermines the principles of parental choice
and local control. As Heritage Foundation education analyst Dan
Lips explains in a new
paper:

"The Bush Administration's original blueprint for NCLB included
some valuable reform principles, such as reducing bureaucracy,
promoting state flexibility, and expanding parental choice in
education. However, those valuable reform ideas were either watered
down or eliminated during the legislative process on Capitol Hill
in 2001. The bill that emerged from Congress greatly expanded
federal power in education while doing little to eliminate
bureaucracy, restore state and local control of education, or
empower parents."

Sure, those who measure success by how much money is spent are
pleased (though they always clamor for more). Federal spending on
education has jumped considerably. The White House's budget request
for FY 2008 would boost NCLB spending to $24.4 billion, a 41
percent increase over FY 2001 levels. Again (in case you missed it
the first time) -- they are requesting a spending increase of 41
percent!

We all know that you cannot fix the plethora of education
problems by throwing more money at them. If you could, then public
schools in the District of Columbia -- where per-pupil spending
tops $13,187 -- would lead the nation in academic achievement.

And we all know that too much of the money winds up wasted on
ineffective and redundant programs. For FY 2008, Lips notes, the
Bush administration has proposed eliminating 44 Education
Department programs that cost taxpayers about $2.2 billion
annually. Good idea, but the White House has proposed eliminating
many of them before, without success, and there's little reason to
think that will change. Expect, for example, to keep shelling out
more than $2 million a year for the Women's Educational Equity Act
-- even though female students tend to best male students on test
scores and other performance measures (not to mention often receiving preferential treatment when they
go off to college).

And what do we get for the money that isn't wasted? A
heavier administrative burden on state and local authorities. NCLB,
Lips writes, "created new rules and regulations for schools and
significantly increased compliance costs for state and local
governments." The law increased their annual paperwork load, the
Office of Management and Budget reports, by more than 6 million
hours at an estimated cost of $141 million. In addition, Lips adds,
"The federal government now has authority over issues that were
once reserved to the local level, such as student testing
policies."

NCLB, like a remedial student, could stand some serious
improvement. Fortunately, some lawmakers are set to debate ways to
do just that. Legislation known as the "A-PLUS Act" has been
introduced in the Senate and the House of Representatives.
According to Lips, some of the reform proposals found in both
versions would help fix NCLB. They would:

Return control of education policymaking authority to state
and local levels. Governors, state legislators and state
secretaries of education would make decisions about local schools,
moving the decision-making process closer to school leaders,
teachers, parents and taxpayers.

Free stateand local governments from the
administrative and compliance burden of federal education
programs. Because participating states could opt out of many
federal program requirements, the A-PLUS Act would significantly
reduce the federal administrative and compliance burden on states
and local education agencies.

Allow states to consolidate wasteful or inefficient
programs. A-PLUS would allow states to consolidate programs
under the "performance agreement" or "declaration of intent." This
would enable state leaders to identify and eliminate ineffective
programs.

Protect transparency and accountability for results. The
A-PLUS Act would allow states to maintain state-level testing and
information reporting to parents and the public. It also would
ensure that states maintain transparency for results while allowing
for greater state flexibility to design a testing system that
serves local needs. States would have the freedom to implement new
testing models without strict oversight from the federal
government.

Let's hope that our elected officials in Washington have learned
their lesson. It's time to put education policy in the hands of
parents and local officials. If lawmakers can do that, I predict
they'll get high marks from all across the nation.